Christian Leaders Threaten Civil Disobedience Pending SCOTUS Gay Marriage Ruling

[maxwel]

At this point, you're being plainly vitriolic. It's unwarranted and, dare I say, very nearly heinous to rhetorically ask if someone "has anything useful to do" with their lives, or whether they have "anyone else to play with."

Now you're accusing me of being heinous and vitriolic... goodness.

That's not very loving and sweet of you.
I thought liberals all believed everyone is entitled to their own opinion?
Are we not allowed to all have opinions?
Are opinions only alright as long as they agree with YOUR opinions?

Furthermore, all I did was ask very reasonable questions.
I can't, for the life of me, truly understand why a devout atheist would be on a Christian forum, day after day, month after month, SEEKING OUT ARGUMENTS, SEEKING OUT CONTROVERSY, SEEKING OUT CONFLICT, SEEKING OUT TURMOIL, SEEKING OUT ANIMOSITY, SEEKING TO CONTINUALLY UPSET a whole community of people who actually have nothing to do with HIM at all.

It's just incredibly strange.
It's strange to come to a community with clearly divergent views, and then for over a year, just try to upset them as much as possible.
It's just bizarre.
I honestly worry for him.
I wonder if there is a personality disorder he's dealing with, or perhaps something even worse.

 

[Percepi]

Yes, and despots would whole heartedly agree as did the Nazis at Nuremberg.
God's Law protects us from man's tyranny.

Christianity isn't the only religious institution to implement marriage. You do know that, right?

Regardless, government marriage is purely secular - so it doesn't matter how marriage is defined by God in accordance to law. If the government is not allowed to impose religion onto the people, then they are not allowed to use a definition of marriage that adheres to any religion.

Also, Maxwel, your response to Lizathrose doesn't address a thing she said. : |

Nobody is trying to censor you, so don't act like it.

And I do NOT have any personality problems. Just because I spend every waking moment of the day thinking about how I can frustrate you doesn't mean I have some sort of issue.

 

[Lizathrose]

Yes, and despots would whole heartedly agree as did the Nazis at Nuremberg.
God's Law protects us from man's tyranny.

Equating something as comparatively benign as an inclusive re-evaluation of an institution with dictatorships or fascist regimes is plainly an inductive fallacy for a number of reasons. We merely reason that the prohibition of same-sex marriage is arbitrary and unfair through its predominantly -- if not exclusively -- religious basis. Furthermore, religion's quite arguable basis as a tool by which various despots have established and maintained power is, in itself, a testament to the extent of the unavoidably subjective nature of morality. I certainly wouldn't agree that religion is, in any way, a prerequisite to living a life that most would define as good or ethical.

 

[Lizathrose]

That's not very loving and sweet of you.
I thought liberals all believed everyone is entitled to their own opinion?
Are we not allowed to all have opinions?
Are opinions only alright as long as they agree with YOUR opinions?

Oh, Maxwel. You're a curious one, at times.

 

[crossnote]

Equating something as comparatively benign as an inclusive re-evaluation of an institution with dictatorships or fascist regimes is plainly an inductive fallacy for a number of reasons. We merely reason that the prohibition of same-sex marriage is arbitrary and unfair through its predominantly -- if not exclusively -- religious basis. Furthermore, religion's quite arguable basis as a tool by which various despots have established and maintained power is, in itself, a testament to the extent of the unavoidably subjective nature of morality. I certainly wouldn't agree that religion is, in any way, a prerequisite to living a life that most would define as good or ethical.

Not talking religion. Of course religion is dangerous, even so called Christian religion (e.g. Crusades) but they are a poor reflection of God's Word.
Again what I was pointing out with you was the danger of man's philosophy that attempts to exalt itself above God's Word as you proposed ...

A definition is decided by parties with the political authority to choose whether embrace or reject that definition.

...when it comes to the Manufacturer, it would prove a disaster to redefine His instructions.

 

[crossnote]

Christianity isn't the only religious institution to implement marriage. You do know that, right?

Regardless, government marriage is purely secular - so it doesn't matter how marriage is defined by God in accordance to law. If the government is not allowed to impose religion onto the people, then they are not allowed to use a definition of marriage that adheres to any religion.

God's Word described the first marriage in Genesis as well as defined it and Jesus put His stamp of approval on it...

and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'.
(Mat 19:5)


Yes there is a legal aspect to marriage but even that will only work in the definition of a man and woman union.

 

[crossnote]

I guess Dobson just weighed in on the matter (6 hours ago)...

High court on verge of destroying the family

 

[PennEd]

I believe it has...


I'm still confused. Incest is not permitted because it narrows the gene pool - like a 50% chance of birth defects. Arguing whether it should be law or not because you should "just know," well that's walking a thin line. To give people the right to exercise their free will is to give also them the right to be idiots, like driving a motorcycle without a helmet.

But in the case of incest, it's not the two who are most affected - it's the unborn child that could result. It could almost be argued that it is a sin against the child if one was produced.


I was just wanting objective evidence that it is. My point with incest was that it is law not because of religion, but because of public interest. Is there any way that homosexual relationships upset the general public in any way - BESIDES upset religious sentiments?



Ah! That is actually a very good question! I'm not sure how to answer that. It would be unlikely to happen, to begin with, I think. But if you are talking about law and order, ideally it applies equally to everyone. Unless the law is drafted in such a way to state that hetersexual incestous relationships are what is a crime.

Here is just one story of brothers in a sexual relationship that want to marry: The question remains, besides the digusting revulsion you feel, why shouldn't they be allowed to marry? Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, this is a moral issue. Once you allow other than one man and one woman to marry, it is just a matter of the DECIDER'S morality on what pairings or threesomes or any other deviancy that can marry.

Incestuous twin brothers wonder if they should reveal their secret relationship.

 

[jamie26301]

The question remains, besides the digusting revulsion you feel,

Not sure how I communicated that, as I am personally not against gay marriage to begin with, but trying to learn more about both sides of this debate.

And the adversion to incest is a common thing - so common it could be called a normal response, not just here in the States, but all over the world.

And actually, to be honest, I wonder if polgymy and other forms of untraditional relationships should be outlawed, where there's no genetic concern.

Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, this is a moral issue.

There are plenty of moral things were the law does not intrude and dictate. You can gossip, you can cheat on your spouse, you can divorce for whatever little frivolous reason you both want to. You can pass poor people everyday and refuse to give them so much as a dime. You can force someone to agree to divorce simply for the fact you want to divorce.

There are lots of choice we make everyday that could be argued as immoral, or lacking in integrity, but we're not writing laws about it. Morality is not the sole decider in whether something should or should not be law.

 

[jamie26301]

Morality is not the sole decider in whether something should or should not be law.

And in the case of incest, it's not.

 

[crossnote]

Not sure how I communicated that, as I am personally not against gay marriage to begin with, but trying to learn more about both sides of this debate.

And the adversion to incest is a common thing - so common it could be called a normal response, not just here in the States, but all over the world.

And actually, to be honest, I wonder if polgymy and other forms of untraditional relationships should be outlawed, where there's no genetic concern.


There are plenty of moral things were the law does not intrude and dictate. You can gossip, you can cheat on your spouse, you can divorce for whatever little frivolous reason you both want to. You can pass poor people everyday and refuse to give them so much as a dime. You can force someone to agree to divorce simply for the fact you want to divorce.

There are lots of choice we make everyday that could be argued as immoral, or lacking in integrity, but we're not writing laws about it. Morality is not the sole decider in whether something should or should not be law.

Well the difference between this and the other sins you mentioned is that this issue strikes at the very foundation of society. ..it strikes at the building block of all socities since the beginning...namely the family. If you are a Christian you will recognize Scripture as being God's Word and would not want to see what God has instituted from the beginning to be redefined to the detriment of society. Read Genesis chapter 2.

 

[jamie26301]

Well the difference between this and the other sins you mentioned is that this issue strikes at the very foundation of society. ..it strikes at the building block of all socities since the beginning...namely the family. If you are a Christian you will recognize Scripture as being God's Word and would not want to see what God has instituted from the beginning to be redefined to the detriment of society. Read Genesis chapter 2.

But stastically, homosexuals are a great, great minority - less than 2% of the population, if I remember correctly. This media may make it look like this great number of people, but who trusts liberal media to give a full picture?

Which is the issue - what can be shown besides a bible verse, that this is determential to society? I'm not saying it is or isn't. But this is a Rublic not a theocracy, so there needs to be a better explaination.

I agree that marriage is between a man and a woman, but it'd be awfully hypocritical of me to tell others by force what is wrong or right and then complain about any offense people take to my practicing of my faith, such as if I hand out bibles, or bringing a child into the world that the doctors know will have a defect some kind, when others think that's unloving. (Not talking incest, but like I take medication that would make a pregnancy difficult)

 

[Stephen63]

I don't have an opinion on the thread except it was well worth having if only just for this.

Lizathrose

Banned

Join DateMay 4th, 2014
Age20
Posts288
Rep Power0

 

[crossnote]

But stastically, homosexuals are a great, great minority - less than 2% of the population, if I remember correctly. This media may make it look like this great number of people, but who trusts liberal media to give a full picture?

Which is the issue - what can be shown besides a bible verse, that this is determential to society? I'm not saying it is or isn't. But this is a Rublic not a theocracy, so there needs to be a better explaination.

I agree that marriage is between a man and a woman, but it'd be awfully hypocritical of me to tell others by force what is wrong or right and then complain about any offense people take to my practicing of my faith, such as if I hand out bibles, or bringing a child into the world that the doctors know will have a defect some kind, when others think that's unloving. (Not talking incest, but like I take medication that would make a pregnancy difficult)

Besides a bible verse on the detrimental quality of SSM? OK, so we must play on their turf with one hand tied behind our back with our sword dislodged? Try this, how will any society continue to exist with SSM unless they leech off the heterosexuals in order to keep the population growing.
Sorry I have to be crass about it but it burns me when they expect us to lay aside our means of revelation to explain their sorry condition.

 

[jamie26301]

Sorry I have to be crass about it but it burns me when they expect us to lay aside our means of revelation to explain their sorry condition.

Christians have a long history of living in ungodly societies. They are called martyrs, and Jesus Himself said that if they kill Him, they will kill you too. It amazes me how shocked Christians are that the world doesn't accept them, while claiming to believe Jesus' words and follow Him with their own cross. Opposition is inevitable. But if we want to keep pushing this until we no longer have a Republic, because the right wants to control people's actions while the left wants to control their thoughts, we only have ourselves to blame... cause we play right along with the most crooked politician, right down to the poverty line.

 

[Desdichado]

I don't have an opinion on the thread except it was well worth having if only just for this.

Lizathrose

Banned

Join DateMay 4th, 2014
Age20
Posts288
Rep Power0

I disagreed with her often, but I thought her challenges were smart and not entirely mean spirited.

It's rather disappointing she's gone.

 

[crossnote]

Christians have a long history of living in ungodly societies. They are called martyrs, and Jesus Himself said that if they kill Him, they will kill you too. It amazes me how shocked Christians are that the world doesn't accept them, while claiming to believe Jesus' words and follow Him with their own cross. Opposition is inevitable. But if we want to keep pushing this until we no longer have a Republic, because the right wants to control people's actions while the left wants to control their thoughts, we only have ourselves to blame... cause we play right along with the most crooked politician, right down to the poverty line.

SHocked? I lived on the other side of the fence for 25 radical years...nothing shocks me, maybe it shocks those who were raised in a christian bubble, I don't know. Of course opposition is quite likely but why take a 'lay down' approach? Even Paul appealed to Ceasar when he was falsely charged.
So are you saying Christians should quietly sit down and say nothing because somehow we are puppets to one side or the other? I'm not quite following your suggestion except we are to yield to any injustice we see because it's inevitable.
What do you suggest besides prayer and voicing our concern? (which is suggestion enough).

 

[jamie26301]

I suggest focusing on yourself, examining yourself, and busy yourself more with your own sin rather than that of others. Paul's appeal was his right granted by the government, and was in not forcing someone into submission to what he thought morality was. He was utlizinf a right, not dictating what the right a should be. *sigh*

I'm not sure I should continue, but one more thing:

Turn the other cheek, do not avenge yourselves, being glad for persecution and doing good to those who hate you., etc...

I seldom see these verses discussed on here. Can't remember the last time actually. Perhaps they are an I convenient reminder that God loves unbelievers and "heretics" too. That would dampen the fire of debate a not, I imagine.

 

[jamie26301]

I suggest focusing on yourself, examining yourself, and busy yourself more with your own sin rather than that of others. Paul's appeal was his right granted by the government, and was in not forcing someone into submission to what he thought morality was. He was utlyizinf a right, not dictating what the right a should be. *sigh*

I'm not sure I should continue, but one more thing:

Turn the other cheek, do not avenge yourselves, being glad for persecution and doing good to those who hate you., etc...

I seldom see these verses discussed on here. Can't remember the last time actually. Perhaps they are an inconvenient reminder that God loves and accepts unbelievers and "heretics" too. That would dampen the fire of debate a bit, I imagine.

 

[crossnote]

I suggest focusing on yourself, examining yourself, and busy yourself more with your own sin rather than that of others. Paul's appeal was his right granted by the government, and was in not forcing someone into submission to what he thought morality was. He was utlizinf a right, not dictating what the right a should be. *sigh*

I'm not sure I should continue, but one more thing:

Turn the other cheek, do not avenge yourselves, being glad for persecution and doing good to those who hate you., etc...

I seldom see these verses discussed on here. Can't remember the last time actually. Perhaps they are an I convenient reminder that God loves unbelievers and "heretics" too. That would dampen the fire of debate a not, I imagine.

Since when is speaking forth our convictions 'forcing someone into submission'??? Are we not to expose evil ever just because we also have a sinful heart? Under that guideline no Christian would speak.
By God's grace we will be glad for persecution when it comes but for now I'm glad for the freedoms we have to proclaim the Gospel and expose EVIL for what it is.